|
|
Post by TCU 2U2 on May 15, 2015 8:29:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by weatherwatcher on May 15, 2015 12:07:48 GMT -5
I am on this list and my Facility manager has not heard anything about it. I have a very good relationship with her and all of the FAA Supervisors. I know they would tell me if they heard anything. Could it be possible that this list is what they wanted to do but the vendors said no? I also haven't heard anything from my company except last week to make a list of the reasons we should stay.
|
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on May 15, 2015 12:47:55 GMT -5
the way I read the FAA notes from the meeting, if and when the potential closings turn into actual closings...the CWO would remain for one more year...to give the airport time to digest this...(and give us time to make our case.) I think I made an excellent case last night comparing MAF and LBB during a TS event. LBB, maybe I helped your cause  for example...if the closures were announced for a certain group on sept 30th...the site would remain until sept 30, 2016. does anybody else agree with this reasoning? |
|
|
|
Post by kukblue1 on May 15, 2015 16:33:32 GMT -5
that is how I read it. Next 3 months get them trained and then a year get rid of us. However with the way our government works and the push back they will get our year will end up probably being 2 or 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by fu on May 16, 2015 9:17:33 GMT -5
Anyone else notice something missing from page 9 of the FAA handout?
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on May 16, 2015 11:16:29 GMT -5
Yes, as there has always been: "NO QUALITY ASSURANCE" because they don't plan on having any!
skobie
|
|
|
|
Post by fu on May 16, 2015 12:03:26 GMT -5
You think that the stakeholders that weren't in attendance would be interested in knowing that? The ones that were there had questions about it.
Maybe a follow up letter with the actual plan attached. Point out the fact that the reason the shitty LAWRS obs have gone on for so long and will continue is because the FAA is so arrogant that they feel it's unnecessary to even perform QA on there own product. Worth a try in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on May 16, 2015 13:29:34 GMT -5
I was thinking the same thing fu. Good as done.
skobie
|
|
|
|
Post by chachiman on May 18, 2015 5:28:00 GMT -5
You think that the stakeholders that weren't in attendance would be interested in knowing that? The ones that were there had questions about it. Maybe a follow up letter with the actual plan attached. Point out the fact that the reason the shitty LAWRS obs have gone on for so long and will continue is because the FAA is so arrogant that they feel it's unnecessary to even perform QA on there own product. Worth a try in my opinion. Absolutely, the stakeholders will be getting an email letter from me that points out all the holes in the FAA's plan. The more things we come up to show that this is an absolutely ridiculous plan, the more chance we will have to stop this from happening. |
|
|
|
Post by skobie on May 18, 2015 9:17:14 GMT -5
I worked on my letter yesterday. I am going to email, then follow it up by sending a snail mail copy to all vendors, then my congressmen.
skobie
|
|
w0x
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by w0x on May 19, 2015 19:26:55 GMT -5
You think that the stakeholders that weren't in attendance would be interested in knowing that? The ones that were there had questions about it. Maybe a follow up letter with the actual plan attached. Point out the fact that the reason the shitty LAWRS obs have gone on for so long and will continue is because the FAA is so arrogant that they feel it's unnecessary to even perform QA on there own product. Worth a try in my opinion. Absolutely, the stakeholders will be getting an email letter from me that points out all the holes in the FAA's plan. The more things we come up to show that this is an absolutely ridiculous plan, the more chance we will have to stop this from happening. Is there any update on this? The is the second time (first 2013) that we have been told this.
You have to have a physical presence in this type of situation!
The unions have and should have this info (lobbyist/legislative personnel) available to its dues paying members at the bare minimum.
There should be no question as to who works for you in Washington DC. Look at the NWSEO and the NATCA web sites and it is transparent and easily seen who is doing what.
NWSEO Hirn has served as NWSEO General Counsel since 1981, and as its Legislative Director and lobbyist since 2005.
NATCA
Government Affairs Director Jose Ceballos
Deputy Director of Government Affairs Erin Barry
Political and Legislative Representative Allie Valocchi
Research & Policy Analyst Suzanne DeFelice
PAC Assistant Elizabeth Weaver ----------------------------------
I think PATCO1199 should be much more forthcoming. W0X
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
aero0
New Member
Posts: 29 
|
Post by aero0 on Jun 18, 2015 22:12:08 GMT -5
Has anyone heard about when approximately those several dozen CWO's will be closing?
|
|
|
|
Post by coldairfunnel on Jun 18, 2015 23:35:46 GMT -5
aero0...it takes the government about 30 years to make a decision and another 20 years to enact their decision. So, I would say around 2035....
|
|
|
|
Post by weatherwatcher on Jun 19, 2015 6:23:43 GMT -5
I dont think that it has been established that they will be closing.
|
|
|
|
Post by toofarnorth on Jun 19, 2015 12:18:22 GMT -5
Huerta is taking heat from congress on other corruption/inefficiency issues. This is good for us - they will be VERY careful how they handle things - but when the heat gets turned down, we are targets. Be ready. So far they are just testing the push back from user groups and how they could be used to lever more money from congress.
|
|
for example...if the closures were announced for a certain group on sept 30th...the site would remain until sept 30, 2016. does anybody else agree with this reasoning?